ORDER :

Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same, I deem it appropriate to dispose of both the writ petitions by way of common order.

2. The brief facts of the case are that, Petitioner in W.P.No.25555 of 2020 was appointed as Police Constable on 04.11.2009 and he worked up to October 2013 at Nunna Police Station, Vijayawada. Later, he was posted to II Town, Vijayawada Police Station in October, 2013.

3. The Petitioner in W.P.No.1482 of 2021 was appointed as a Police Constable, joined in service on 10.02.2003 and posted in Crime Branch, I Town Police Station, Vijayawada.

4. While so, an F.I.R was registered against the petitioners vide Crime No.925 of 2013, for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 384 r/w 34 of IPC, on the file of II Town Police Station, Vijayawada. Both the Petitioners were arrested and sent for remand.

5. The further case of the petitioners that the crime was registered basing upon a report submitted by one Kumari Bhudala Amulya when herself and her boy friend (Suvarna Raju) were at Y V Rao estates, both the petitioners questioned about the purpose of their stay at Y.V.Rao estates, and one petitioners took away her boy friend, Suvarna Raju from the complainant and misbehaved with the complainant by contacting her body parts from top to bottom and left the place forcibly and collected an amount of Rs.5,500/- from her boy friend.

6. Pursuant to the said crime, Respondent No.3 initiated departmental enquiry and issued Charge Memo dated 22.04.2014 and placed the petitioners under suspension, pending disciplinary proceedings. Later, the suspension order was revoked, subject to finalization of the disciplinary proceedings by Respondent No.2 vide order dated 09.01.2015.

7. It is the further case of the petitioners that the Enquiry Officer conducted common enquiry against both the petitioners and submitted report to the Respondent No.2 holding that the charges against the petitioners were proved, for which the petitioners were issued show cause notices and sought for explanation. After submitting explanation to the show cause notice, Respondent No.3 issued proceedings dated 20.06.2018 imposing major punishment of “dismissal from service” by accepting the enquiry report in toto in a mechanical manner, without assigning any reasons and also treating the suspension period of the petitioners from 07.11.2013 to 10.01.2015 as a non-duty period.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the meanwhile, the competent Criminal Court rendered a judgment on 17.04.2014 acquitting the petitioners from the very same charge on the ground of lack of evidence and material.

9. Aggrieved by the order of Respondent No.3, the petitioners preferred appeals before the Appellate Authority i.e. Respondent No.2/DGP. The appeals were rejected vide Memo No.2344990(P)/Ser.II/A1/2019, dated 21.05.2020, without assigning any reasons, and by way of cryptic order. The said original order of punishment of dismissal from service passed by Respondent No.3 dated 20.06.2018 and rejection of appeals by Respondent No.2/DGP vide proceedings dated 21.05.2020, were assailed before this Court.

10. The learned Government Pleader for Services-I filed counter affidavit wherein it is stated that, in view of registration of crime against the petitioners, they were placed under suspension. The petitioners were arrested and remanded to custody, as they were involved in the offences of moral turpitude vide proceedings dated 10.11.2013. Respondent No.3, who is the competent authority, also initiated departmental proceedings and issued Charge Memo dated 22.04.2014, basing upon the preliminary enquiry dated 15.11.2013, the petitioners submitted their explanation and after considering the explanation, the respondents appointed an Enquiry Officer and conducted enquiry in accordance with Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991(for short “the APCS (CCA) Rules, 1991”) and finall